United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE A
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER (DOC. 39)
Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendants
Golden Empire Transit and Toddash Kim seek leave to file
their second amended answer with additional affirmative
defenses. (Doc. 39) Plaintiff LaToya Johnson opposes the
motion. (Doc. 39) Because the Court finds the leave to amend
is appropriate under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Defendants’ motion to amend is GRANTED.
I.
Background
In
2012, Plaintiff was hired by Golden Empire Transit District
as a driver. (Doc. at 1-2, ¶¶ 4, 8) She was
supervised by defendant Toddash Kim, the operations
supervisor with GET. (Id. at 2, ¶ 5) In
December 2013, Plaintiff requested a leave of absence after
suffering a knee injury that limited her ability to walk,
kneel, or squat. (Id., ¶ 9) Plaintiff visited a
physician on December 26, 2013, “who indicated
Plaintiff needed to take time off work.” (Id.)
In January 2014, the physician “indicated that she
needed to take additional time off work due to her knee
injury, ” and Plaintiff “faxed a note from her
physician to GET.” (Id. at 2, ¶ 10) In
addition, Plaintiff “placed a phone call to GET to take
additional leave time.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 10)
Plaintiff reports she “visited the GET offices on or
about January 9, 2014 to discuss modified duty and her
injuries.” (Id.) However, at that time
Plaintiff was advised that “she was suspended form her
position as a driver.” (Id.)
GET
terminated Plaintiff’s employment on February 6, 2014.
(Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 11) Plaintiff alleges GET
“claim[ed] that she had violated rules on the day of
the injury by allegedly leaving her bus unattended.”
(Id.) According to Plaintiff, she and other drivers
“had engaged in similar conduct prior to [December 26,
2013] without discipline.” (Id.) Plaintiff
filed a claim with the California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing and received a right to sue letter.
(Id., ¶ 12)
Plaintiff
initiated this action by filing a complaint against GET and
her supervisor on November 20, 2014. (Doc. 1) She contends
Defendants are liable for a violation of the Family and
Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2615. (Id. at 3)
In addition, Plaintiff asserts GET is liable for (1)
discrimination in violation of the California Family Rights
Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2; (2) discrimination
based upon disability and failure to accommodate in violation
of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal.
Gov’t Code § 12926; and (3) failure to take
reasonable steps to prevent discrimination. (Id. at
4-6)
GET
filed its answer to the allegations on January 14, 2015,
including thirty-six affirmative defenses. (Doc. 7) Plaintiff
filed a motion to strike the affirmative defenses, which was
granted in part by the Court on April 7, 015. (Doc. 18) The
Court found GET “failed to set forth any factual basis
in support of its failure to mitigate damages affirmative
defense.” (Id. at 6) Accordingly, the defense
was stricken “without prejudice to defendant filing a
motion to amend its answer to re-assert this defense with
appropriate factual allegations.” (Id.,
emphasis omitted) However, the Court denied the motion to
strike “[t]he affirmative defenses that
Defendant’s conduct was ‘justified’ and
based upon ‘legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons.’” (Id. at 7) GET filed its
Amended Answer to the complaint on April 10, 2015. (Doc. 20)
The same day, defendant Toddash Kim filed his Answer. (Doc.
19)
On
April 29, 2015, the Court held a scheduling conference with
the parties and set forth the deadlines governing the action.
(Doc. 22) Specifically, “[a]ny requested pleading
amendments are ordered to be filed, either through a
stipulation or motion to amend, no later than October 14,
2015, ” and any non-dispositive motions were to be
filed no later than April 29, 2016. (Id. at 1-2,
emphasis omitted) However, the Court granted the
parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline for filing
a motion to amend the pleadings and file any non-dispositive
motions to May 16, 2016. (Doc. 34at 4)
On May
16, 2016, Defendants filed the motion now pending before the
Court, seeking to leave to file a second amended answer.
(Doc. 39) Plaintiff filed her opposition to the motion on May
31, 2016 (Doc. 40), to which Defendants filed a reply on June
7, 2016 (Doc. 41) The Court found the matter suitable for
decision without oral arguments, and took the matter under
submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).
II.
Legal Standards[1]
Under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), a party may amend a pleading once as a
matter of course within 21 days of service, or if the
pleading is one to which a response is required, 21 days
after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f).
“In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading
only with the opposing party’s written consent or the
court’s leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Because
Plaintiff does not consent to the filing of the Second
Amended Answer, Defendants seek the leave of the Court.
Granting
or denying leave to amend a pleading is in the discretion of
the Court, Swanson v. United States Forest Service,
87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996), though leave should be
“freely give[n] when justice so requires.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “In exercising this discretion,
a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15
to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the
pleadings or technicalities.” United States v.
Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). Consequently,
the policy to grant leave to amend is applied with extreme
liberality. Id.
There
is no abuse of discretion “in denying a motion to amend
where the movant presents no new facts but only new theories
and provides no satisfactory explanation for his failure to
fully develop his contentions originally.” Bonin v.
Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995); see also
Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 374 (9th
Cir. 1990). Leave to amend should not be granted where
“amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party,
is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue
delay.” Madeja v. Olympic Packers, 310 F.3d
628, 636 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Yakama Indian Nation v.
Washington Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 1999)).
III.
...